Here you go you fucking lying piece of shit. Knock yourself out. Permanently. Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site). IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46 Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306 V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141 B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483. In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826. The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/) Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009). L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7 R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009 http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html National Snow and Ice Data Center World Glacier Monitoring Service "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016 https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1 Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334 Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification? http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371 Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36. National Snow and Ice Data Center C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504 http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
I would never make it as a think tank operator. They are instructed not to insult or get into name calling because it turns people off. Piehole is doing a really good job. Classic trojan horse mode. Appear knowlegable and polite and be correct about everything except the target propaganda. Conservatives are already on the denial side, the real gains can be made on those from the left. And if anyone doubts that these think tanks have social media operators out there doing just what piehole is doing, I would like to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge.
you are one crazy troll. I asked for science which showed co2 has caused warming here on earth. please point to the peer reviewed papers so we can discuss this rationally. I know that co2 has warming properties. I know temperatures have gone up since the last age. I wanted to actually discuss the science and establish what we know and what we don't know when co2 is added to the atmosphere. For instance Since warming happens before the co2 increases in the atmosphere... how do you know that the co2 causes the warming? you best answer it that you think it amplifies the warming... but you have no proof.
if you examine the data in your chart... you find that change in ocean temps leads change in air temps by 3 months which lead change in co2 levels by 9 months. I showed you the peer reviewed science many many times. co2 follows with a 90 percent correlation. but it is the laggard. Why do you keep acting like your charts are proving your point? talk about denial trolls
"The real question is, does anything Keating say against Nir Shaviv's ideas have real scientific merit." They don't. That's why I responded as ridiculously as I did. Nothing more measured would have been appropriate. My hands were tied. I believe absurdinity deserves to be responded to by ridiculosity. All I can do is suggest you view Shaviv's youtube presentation and then read Keating's critique. Keating's remark that solar irradiance is down by 0.1 (units not, specified, shall we assume W/sq. meter?, time period not specified) leaves me with no choice but to respond by saying "##*!", and other words to that effect. Keating's response had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Shaviv's brilliant hypothesis, which has to do with (you decide after viewing Shaviv's presentation). I an not saying Shaviv is right. I am saying Keating is crazeeee.. And then to add a second link to a science journalist' s work, well that was just too, too much! I hope you enjoyed the maraschino cherry sundae I served up.
That makes two of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists agreeing with each other. Perhaps you should take note.
Perhaps you should take note of this chart. Thinktank Scumbag. No more tobacco to defend? Respected? By whom? Industry whores and liars is about all. So of course you respect them.
A bottom line here is that none of us, including myself, who might be the only scientist here, is in a position to be believable as critic of scientists working in the area of "global warming". They are the experts; we are not. And although any one, or several of them, can be wrong, their colleagues will eventually have the next to last say. In Science, Mother Nature always has the last say.